MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103802086 · doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12014

Effects of children's working memory capacity and processing speed on their sentence imitation performance

2013· article· en· W2103802086 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Language & Communication Disorders · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAction Observation and Synchronization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersPennsylvania State University
KeywordsWorking memoryImitationSentence processingSentencePsychologyCognitive psychologyShort-term memoryCognitionAssociation (psychology)Natural language processingComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: More limited working memory capacity and slower processing for language and cognitive tasks are characteristics of many children with language difficulties. Individual differences in processing speed have not consistently been found to predict language ability or severity of language impairment. There are conflicting views on whether working memory and processing speed are integrated or separable abilities. AIMS: To evaluate four models for the relations of individual differences in children's processing speed and working memory capacity in sentence imitation. The models considered whether working memory and processing speed are integrated or separable, as well as the effect of the number of operations required per sentence. The role of working memory as a mediator of the effect of processing speed on sentence imitation was also evaluated. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Forty-six children with varied language and reading abilities imitated sentences. Working memory was measured with the Competing Language Processing Task (CLPT), and processing speed was measured with a composite of truth-value judgment and rapid automatized naming tasks. Mixed-effects ordinal regression models evaluated the CLPT and processing speed as predictors of sentence imitation item scores. A single mediator model evaluated working memory as a mediator of the effect of processing speed on sentence imitation total scores. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Working memory was a reliable predictor of sentence imitation accuracy, but processing speed predicted sentence imitation only as a component of a processing speed by number of operations interaction. Processing speed predicted working memory capacity, and there was evidence that working memory acted as a mediator of the effect of processing speed on sentence imitation accuracy. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: The findings support a refined view of working memory and processing speed as separable factors in children's sentence imitation performance. Processing speed does not independently explain sentence imitation accuracy for all sentence types, but contributes when the task requires more mental operations. Processing speed also has an indirect effect on sentence imitation by contributing to working memory capacity.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it